Media lies still flaming the war embers.. Review on War on Iraq: Case For 'Yes'

Gaud is a noun that means:  deceit; fraud, artifice; device.

The liberal pro-pot/drugs/sex newspaper/website'The Guardian' had to publicly write TWO retractions on it's previous headlines on the front page about'It's all about Oil' or'Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims' which it ran the previous days suggesting that Iraq was just a pawn of the USA for oil or that the USA never thought there was WMD in Iraq and had a meeting to cover it up. Both have been fully retracted and the Guardian(I call it GAUDian because that is what they do best in my opinion) has egg on it's face again. You would think they would learn after about the 500th time, but it does not seem to be that way. I say'Thank you God for the Internet', because it allows the common person like me to find the truth when others try to shout otherwise.

https://guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0, 3604, 970468, 00.html

Here is what the Guardian said on it's second retraction.

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading'Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil' misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defense website, 'The . . . difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.' The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

https://guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0, 3604, 971436, 00.html

(Note: The Guardian you remember was the newspaper that also had to retract it's editorial that Bush had an IQ of less than 100, which still quite a few people here on MS still quote without reference to a true source even though it has been shown over and over to be an urban legend). That is my reason for writing this review/opinion. I don't mind if you believe something, but at least have the gumption to print take time to find what you are blather about is true or not. Facts I can deal with, Lies get under my skin.

Unfortunately a bunch of other media sources also picked up the USA just wants Iraq Oil headline. CNN ran the ticker at the bottom with the story for hours and most Arab Newspapers quickly jumped on board with anything negative they could find on Bush often quoting the guardian's article. But now that it has been proved wrong and the source newspaper has reluctantly retracted it(They hate to do it too, proof ->https://thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=623512003'), will these other media sources also retract the lies they spouted like real men do when they are wrong? Nope, they will just shut up and act like they never said anything wrong. That my friends is what makes me upset, media that will not retract and admit it when they are wrong.

Here is a local newspaper that is still using the same lies told in the Gaud. https://bouldernews.com/bdc/editorials/article/0, 1713, BDC_2489_2012009, 00.html

Notice it has the following lie told again ->A transcript of a meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and his British counterpart, Jack Straw, reveals that both men fretted over trumped-up WMD claims.

There was no meeting, there was never a transcript of the nonexistent meeting and the Gaud had to retract it fully and admit it was a lie. But see how liberal newspapers keep passing the lie on and on and on and on. That makes me mad(and it should you too). At least the Wall Street Journal tore into them today( https://opinionjournal.com/best/). It seems some papers do care about the truth after all.

The WMD issue has been a heated one, I personally think they have found all they need to find as far as this is concerned with the two trailers they found that mixed chemicals for placing in missiles. This chemicals were enough to make almost pure sarin.( https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922957/posts) But I think there will be more WMD evidence found too after we find places to dig where Saddam has not buried murdered people.(https://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_barrels030426.html) It is hard to dig in Iraq without finding tons of dead people everywhere you put a shovel.

I heard a lot of people here at MS seemed almost ashamed that the Iraq war did not last very long(it was over almost as soon as it had begun). I personally think that is just silly, who in Iraq wanted to fight for a man that killed half your own family? I know I wouldn't want to. The Iraq people could of put up a much better defense if their heart had been in it, but why fight for a murderer(and they mostly didn't)? I don't think most people on MS thought of it that way, but I do. You must have something to fight/die for too and Saddam never offered his people that. What is the shame in that, nothing.

Now in conclusion, I wish to say no matter which side you fell on during the Iraq war that I hope you agree with me that newspapers need to keep the truth first and foremost. A newspaper that lies over and over will be found out by those that seek the truth and will never be trusted as reliable.

Below are more links to back up what my assumptions are in the above opinion. I try to link my opinions the best I can. Opinions are welcome in the comment section(bring your cup of ice, it tends to get pretty heated when  my opinions are presented as they are not always the most popular). Thank you.

https://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_barrels030426.html

https://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&e=1&u=/afp/20030604/ts_af
p/iraq_britain_weapons_030604044102